Sat, Apr 2, 2011·Xcel Energy Center, St. Paul
Tampa Bay Lightning 3, Minnesota Wild 1
Expected result
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 66% of the time.
By period
Goals and shots on goal in each period.
| Team | P1 | P2 | P3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TBL | 08 | 211 | 14 | 323 |
| MIN | 19 | 010 | 011 | 130 |
Goals, with shots on goal in grey.
Scoring
Every goal, with the change it made to the home team's win probability.
- P1 17:03MINPierre-Marc BouchardAssists: Kyle Brodziak, Cal Clutterbuck · Wrist, 0.22 xG0–1
- P2 5:09TBLRyan MaloneAssists: Dominic Moore, Mike Lundin · Backhand, 0.15 xG1–1
- P2 9:05TBLSteve DownieGWGAssists: Simon Gagne, Eric Brewer · Wrist, 0.20 xG2–1
- P3 7:58TBLSean BergenheimAssists: Martin St. Louis · Snap, 0.11 xG3–1
Penalties (8)
- P1 5:54TBLPavel Kubina: Holding2 min
- P1 13:18MINAntti Miettinen: Tripping2 min
- P2 0:54TBLSteve Downie: Interference2 min
- P2 11:06MINAntti Miettinen: Holding2 min
- P2 16:06MINGreg Zanon: Hooking2 min
- P2 18:06TBLVictor Hedman: Hooking2 min
- P2 19:20MINMatt Cullen: Interference2 min
- P3 12:02TBLMattias Ohlund: Roughing2 min
Replay
Watch the game unfold on the ice: every shot, hit, turnover and faceoff appears as it happened, then fades. Drag the timeline to jump; goals are marked on it.
20:00
P1
- P1 20:00Koivu won the faceoff against Lecavalier
- Goal
- Shot
- Miss
- Block
- Hit
- Takeaway
- Giveaway
- Faceoff
- Penalty
The numbers
Team totals, side by side.
Line combinations that worked
Model-basedEach team's forward lines and defence pairs at 5-on-5 (two minutes or more together), best first by expected goals for minus against.
Tampa Bay Lightning
Forward lines
- bestGagne – Downie – Stamkos11:22
xG 0.58–0.45 (56%)attempts 11–16goals 1–1
- St. Louis – Lecavalier – Thompson8:55
xG 0.16–0.05 (76%)attempts 7–4goals 0–0
- Hall – Bergenheim – Tyrell3:46
xG 0.01–0.01 (60%)attempts 2–2goals 0–0
- Malone – Moore – Purcell5:58
xG 0.03–0.04 (43%)attempts 2–4goals 0–0
Defence pairs
- bestKubina – Hedman10:42
xG 0.46–0.14 (77%)attempts 13–6goals 0–0
- Ohlund – Clark11:36
xG 0.21–0.09 (69%)attempts 5–9goals 1–0
- Brewer – Lundin13:56
xG 0.20–0.27 (43%)attempts 8–16goals 1–0
Minnesota Wild
Forward lines
- bestBouchard – Brodziak – Clutterbuck7:08
xG 0.37–0.31 (54%)attempts 11–8goals 1–0
- Brunette – Miettinen – Koivu8:07
xG 0.06–0.15 (27%)attempts 4–7goals 0–1
- Cullen – Havlat – Kobasew6:10
xG 0.06–0.24 (20%)attempts 5–6goals 0–1
Defence pairs
- bestBurns – Spurgeon2:03
xG 0.07–0.00 (100%)attempts 2–0goals 0–0
- Stoner – Spurgeon10:59
xG 0.23–0.17 (58%)attempts 10–8goals 0–0
- Zanon – Stoner2:50
xG 0.06–0.02 (77%)attempts 4–1goals 0–0
How the game flowed
Model-basedChance quality for each side, minute by minute, with pressure underneath.
Running total of expected goals for each team. Steep climbs are spells of pressure; dots are goals. Shaded bands mark power plays (team colour), 4-on-4 or 3-on-3 (grey) and empty nets.
Tempo: attempts, hits and takeaways per minute
Win probability
Model-basedHow each goal and each minute changed the likely winner.
MIN's chance of winning through the game. Above the middle line MIN is favoured, below it TBL. Dots are goals.
Did the better team win?
Every shot replayed 10,000 times, scoring with its expected-goal probability.
Based on shot quality alone, Tampa Bay Lightning win this game 66% of the time.
Simulated goal difference (MIN − TBL), 10,000 replays
The outlined bar is the actual result (excluding the shootout).